Re:Krisnamurti and nihilism
Apr 15, 1998 08:57 PM
by Bjorn Roxendal
Thoa Tran wrote:
> >And the idea of the Guru - chela relationship was clearly subscribed to by
> >K and
> >M, as well as the other adepts behind the TS. When K turned against the
> >guru-chela relationship he turned against his own teachers/gurus and the
> >plan he
> >was a part of.
> I would also say that even K and M cannot be sure what the plan is. K and
> M have said that they are also fallible. Perhaps Krisnamurti turning
> against the guru-chela relationship is the plan. My only argument is that,
> it happened, therefore it MUST be the plan.
A pretty weak argument. Perhaps better not use it.. It looks like some version of fatalism. No, free will makes it possible to use ones powers to
sabotage the plan. I am afraid that is what happened in this case.
> Devotion to a guru is a way of letting go of boundaries, which is also a
> way of opening up to higher knowledge through intuition. With full
> devotion, which probably means you let go of any material wealth and all
> questioning, you can discard the lower ego's necessity for material
> self-sufficiency, intellectual analysis and skepticism, and hence some
> boundaries of the mind. This would be successful only if placed in the
> hands of a loving guru who would not abuse that power. At the worst end of
> the guru-chela relationship, we would have cults such as the Heaven's Gate,
> in which the releasing of boundaries results in inhabiting the
> misconceptions of the guru.
Yes, if you have a Guru it better be a good one.
> For those who are not sure that there is a living human being in existence
> who you can entrust your soul to (for you will be, in a chela-guru
> relationship), some boundaries will have to remain intact, such as
> self-sufficiency and discernment.
The best gurus will make sure that you excercise those faculties.
> >I remember reading some interesting passages by K in the Mahatma letters, about
> >the guru-chela relationship. Perhaps I should try to find them. His statements
> >did confirm some of what you say about the "strong" position of the Guru.
> I remember vaguely about that. If you could find it, that would be great.
> If it's not too inconvenient, perhaps you can post them. Or perhaps Doss
> has them. I'll have to scope my library.
I think he (Kuthumi) said, when talking about the chela in early stages, that he naturally would be "somewhat docile".
So far, all I find through the theosophical search engine (are you all using it?):
"....the stage of pupilage. Docile and obedient but never slaves during that time we must be; otherwise, and if we passed our time in arguing we never
would learn anything at all."
Letter no. 98
> >> I cannot dispute your personal experiences with K's philosophy. Each
> >> person has to find what is best for him/her. If K's philosophy did not
> >> work for you, then it was best to find something else.
> I actually love to argue passionately and devilishly. Of course, this is
> only fun if the party you are arguing with and the audience know that you
> are having fun. Otherwise, it can be harrowing for the participant and the
> audience. I've toned down quite a bit since joining the theosophy lists.
Well, to your credit I must say that I don't find the aggressive kind of ego vibes that often goes with arguing in what you say. You probably can wear
most opponents down with your remarkable endurance though, but that is another story.
> >There are many pretty strange gurus and leaders who have plenty of followers,
> >all the way to a Hitler and other Black magicians. Many of their followers
> >say that being such is "highly fulfilling", so that does not prove too much.
> Well, what does Doss have to say about being compared to followers of
> Hitler and Black magicians??? :o)
I know you know that Doss was not compared in that way. But you chose to humor yourself out of a sticky position, right?
> >Ultimately we make something our God. Following K's teachings, what would
> >it be?
> The God is our creative self, our divine self.
Aha! Now, is that YOU or K saying that? If it is K, I *really* would like to read some passages where he makes comments of that kind.
> >You DEFINITELY seem to lack many of the undesirable traits of HPB. Try again!
> Ooh, I better go smoke some hashish!
> Sorry, Dallas, again.
To be honest with you, that would NOT be enough. It would take you many life times to catch up with HPBs "shadow" side, even if you worked hard at it.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application